Civil unrest around the world
 

Turkey!

Brazil!

Who? Why? Where next?

Brazil?

It's due to the huge disparity between the haves and have-nots.

Brazil

http://blogs.estadao.com.br/estadao-...-em-sao-paulo/

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rita...b_3453851.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-spending.html

The people seem fed up with corrupt brutal incompetent government and finally snapped when bus fares were put up by 20 cents.

North Carolina - June 18, 2013

Jakarta, too.

http://bayareaintifada.wordpress.com...el-price-hike/

Each situation has their unique reasons but it seems that most protesters are angry about increasingly authoritative governments, corruption, stagnating economies, and decrease in quality of life for the younger middle class.


One trend that seems to be appearing is that all the up-and-coming economies are starting to stagnate. The BRICs are slowing down while Turkey and Indonesia were predicted to be part of the a "second-wave" of rapidly developing economies.

Could it be any greater than in the US?

Time to learn blacksmithery and how to make your own longbow?

That would be the healthy response...

I doubt it is greater but it is definitely shifted downwards. I was in Brazil this past December and while it was a beautiful and amazing country, overall, their infrastructure and poverty is so much worse than here in the US. Driving in Sao Paulo makes Washington D.C. and Atlanta tolerable and their are multiple stories of people showing up to an E.R. who are then told to go to another hospital via public transportation. There are entire communities living on the outskirts of Sao Paulo and Rio who literally live under cardboard. Not just a random homeless person or two, but entire communities.

Brazil, and I'm sure Turkey and Indonesia, have a lot to be proud of economically but the foundation of their growth isn't necessarily stable.

We're getting rid of all our stuff, selling our house, I'm only working contract jobs, paid off all our debt and socking my exorbitant IT fees into savings.

Will you rent or live in a motor home?

Rent.

An Airstream trailer behind a Cummins diesel would be ideal.

Now Bulgaria.

Some of the largest protests in Egyptian history has occurred in the past few days to call for Morsy's resignation. The Egyptian military has stated that Morsy must resign by the end of today to enforce the "will of the people" or they will take matters into their own hands. Morsy has refused to step down and believes he is the legitimate ruler until the next election.

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/posts/...t_backing_down

What will happen is to be defined in these hours. Most political solutions do not come down to a specific time defined in advance:
Tens of thousands in the streets as deadline arrives; Morsi has vowed not to cede power Ironic he discussed presidential removal at Kent State.

The army is moving onto the streets and a travel ban is placed on high ranking MB members.

Updates, photos, and videos can be found here:

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...eadline/66815/

CBS is now reporting that the Egyptian army has taken control,
that Morsi has been ousted, and the constitution suspended.

I've read claims of up to 14 million demonstrators. Wow.

I'm torn on this one.

(a) I don't like any religion based government.

but...

(b) AFAIK Morsi was properly elected under the new constitution, and is in fact the legitimate government.

... Unless ...

(c) he has been behaving unconstitutionally. And seriously so. Has he? I haven't been watching too closely, but I've heard complaints about this, with him essentially turning Egypt into a religious state (or trying to). If so, out with him.

But if so, the constitution should have a clause allowing the supreme court to order this. Unless he has also stacked the court or is ignoring its orders. In which case, mobs to the street it is.

And, just quietly, (d) I like a good mob-based ousting of a dictator.

Yes he haD.... He is old news.

What is interesting is that the US govt is not calling it a coup when thats absolutely what it is. Why you might as?
So that we can continue to give them shit-tons of aid money.
No no, I'm serious. Really.

Tillering up your own longbow out of osage-orange -- also called bois-d'arc for darn good reason -- makes a neato hobby. Turning fletcher, there's another.

Purely from the definition, this was actually not a clear cut coup. Coup implies military takeover and the Egyptian military has 'said' that it plans on giving the government reigns back to a democratically elected leader. Also, aid money to Egypt is about buying influence in the region. With everything that has been going on in the Middle East lately and the uncertainty of Egypt's future, I don't think Obama wants to lose influence with the most powerful institution in Egypt.

Its just semantics at this point though. I'm not very optimistic since the Islamists are calling for civil war...

I don't consider this a coup by the normal definition because it was preceded by 10,000,000 or so citizens on the street demanding change. Perhaps more of a military-assisted-people's revolution.

I think Egypt *might* avoid civil war, because its unique geography fosters an "Egyptian" identity rather than a Sunni / Shia / Christian / whatever identity. But it might not, because those other identities are pretty gripping, at least on some people.

Everyone is calling it a cop EXCEPT the US. Why? because ...

The US government is barred by law from giving foreign aid to countries under military coup.

"There are significant consequences that go along with this determination," Mr Carney said, "and it is a highly charged issue for millions of Egyptians who have different views about what happened."

51 protesters shot dead in Cairo.
These people play for keeps.

They're being a lot more ruthless with the Brotherhood than they were with the general protestors. :right:

I'm just glad I went in one of the periods of relative calm.
I'd be wary of visiting now.

Then again, even in "safe" countries you can be in danger.
When I went to Sri Lanka we ignored much of the official advice from the rep, because she only wanted to sell us official tours. My companions? A couple from Belfast.

Well, the general protestors were using laser pointers against helicopters when they protested. The Brotherhood is showing up with guns at their demonstrations.

Wolf shows up with a gun pretty much everywhere she goes.
Should she be gunned down in the street too?

Depends on what she does with the gun.

The Egyptian military felt the situation warranted an armed response. I wasn't there, so I don't have any inside knowledge, but in general, if you shoot at soldiers, you shouldn't be surprised if they shoot back.

I'll admit I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but I also suspect that not all 51 dead (it's not 51 shot at, it's 51 fatalities) were armed.

Well I'm guessing the media calls it it a coup because it brings more attention and they don't have to be as careful with semantics. Either way, its just typical foreign policy.

I agree with you. The statements from the military and brotherhood (protestors that got shot) completely contradict each other. Military says they were attacked. Brotherhood says the shootings were unprovoked.

There is a video circulating of a soldier sitting on top of a rooftop shooting into the crowd and none of the protestors are attacking them. Also, the photos show gunshot wounds to the back of the head, suggesting that they were shot either running away or when they were praying.

There is also video of what look to be Brotherhood guys firing guns, apparently towards soldiers - it was edited in with the guy shooting from the roof, but it was not clear who shot first. Or even if any of it was genuine.

so... the difference here is what to call the method used to change the leadership? a coup or not a coup? Ok, wrestle with that. I understand the US government's ... reluctance to accept that label.

I think another interesting question is what to call the changes in the scope of the president's authority that Morsi made. Were they legal? Were they legal because he was "the decider"? I think he dramatically changed the role of the presidency but kept the title and the mantle of legitimacy of having been "democratically elected", but what they elected and what he/the office had become were completely different.

That's not a coup; that's cuckoo.

Well put.


Meanwhile, anyone watching North Carolina?

Then there's Saudi Arabia, our loyal and stable, or at least secure, ally. Right?

http://en.alalam.ir/news/1499049

This resentment has been festering for decades. Remember where 17 of the September 11 hijackers came from? A lot of people in this country hate their leadership, and by association, hate the west in general and the US in particular.

IIRC there was some civil protest in Saudi in 2011, which was bought off by cancelling student debts and stuff like that. I recall thinking that they had just bought time, although I was looking in the 6 to 12 month range.

Should one want to create conflict and instability (what extremists want), then ones takes a shoot and runs away. Then 51 others get shot.

That is the responsibility of a soldier. To be shot at and not fire back. Because the one in 1000 was not identified.

There is nothing fair about being responsible. Soldiers can complain about how life is unfair. But they must ACT responsibly. Let's never forget the murder of innocent students at Kent State. And in the days of Nixon, those soldiers were considered innocent. To this day, some blame students for their own death. Because soldiers violated their responsibilities.

Anyone watching Belfast?
Night of riots over the right to march.
How many months in an Orangeman's calender? 15, because you have the usual amount and then March! March! March!

And the normal melting pot, which always runs at boiling point.
In this case nationalists (Catholic) attacking loyalist (Protestant) property.

From the BBC here:
Bolding mine.

This is still a part of everyday life in NI.
Live somewhere dominated by one form of Christianity, get targeted by the other.

I saw an interview with an Egyptian doctor. He described *lots* of patients who had been shot ... right in the forehead. BOOM, headshot.

The impression I got was of a big crowd being generally boisterous, then as individuals stepped up to become leaders and agitate for further trouble, a sniper would target them. Just like on the battlefield, where snipers target junior officers who have to make themselves conspicuous to act as leaders.

I would say this has happened too many times for it to be one rogue sniper acting without orders. It looks deliberate and ordered to me. It does NOT look like a bunch of panicky soldiers "returning" fire into a mob after a few shots in their direction.

If so, it is ruthless, and almost certainly illegal, but also a very effective way of pruning off the 1% most dangerous of the troublemakers in the Brotherhood, and intimidating the rest into behaving.

The last sentence of this sounds more like Dr. Seuss than White House Spokesperson. So surreal.

NY Times, "Aid to Egypt Can Keep Flowing, Despite Overthrow, White House Decides"

Wow. A first grader that could school the whole political establishment, not just in Egypt either.

Dunno. Although I actually agree with what he is saying, the terms he uses don't sound like they are his own naturally occurring ideas.

But then I was distraction by the concept of Free Arabs.
I'm still waiting for mine to arrive.

well... I have known some children that were mature far beyond their years, and this is what they sounded like. however, if you can't believe he understands what he says, perhaps you could appreciate his completely believable acting ability. regardless, I, too, agree with he says.

the piece has several cuts in it, I'm sure the realtime conversation had a much different flow.

I watched it again after I posted.
The beliefs are his. Maybe he lifted some words and phrases from his reading and listening, but I don't think he's acting.

Our Foreign Secretary, William Hague, addressed the Tory Party Conference at 16.
He'd probably have been this articulate at 12 too.
Hague's views aren't mine, but I have to allow him a precocious interest and grasp of politics.
He read PPE at Oxford and got a First, so he was in the top percentile.

This young lad could end up changing a country.
If he isn't shot by a sniper.

Well the situation in Egypt seems to be getting better and better by the day...

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/globa...ver-500/68350/

A British cameraman working for Sky News was shot and killed during those attacks.

It's fucked up. Can't root for either side. I want the military to impose some order and keep the government secular, but I don't think massacring the Islamists is going to help matters.

Agreed.

At least Egypt is a homogeneous country which means it probably won't descend into a sectarian civil war *knock on wood* like Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria.

I wonder how the White House will react to this. U.S. media is turning against the military so there may be even stronger calls for us to cut ties. However, the geopolitical advantage of allying with Egypt may still be too much

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Egypt_relations

Textbook example of "ambivalent". Not the colloquial "don't care" definition; the actual "care, but don't know which way" definition.

From the beginning of the uprising in Egypt, I could not figure out how
the US could decide who to support.
I was surprised when Obama first came out early on saying Mubarik should resign.

Now, a couple of years later he is in the same situation,
and doesn't seem to have a good reason for supporting one side or the other.
His TV announcement a few minutes ago seemed pretty "vanilla".
"Stop the fighting" is about all he could convey.

For now, it seems to me the US position can only be to do nothing different.
By that I mean, the $1B in foreign aide will continue because to discontinue
it would probably have far reaching effects later when a new government is formed.

I suspect the US will sit back and wait to see how things work out,
rather than trying to enter the fray on one side or the other.

US has a problem. A blunt honest US position is religion has no place in any government. But that causes problems with other 'friendly' governments that really are not democracies because religion is fully embedded into their governments. Israel being a perfect example. Due to religion, then overt and intentional double standards (also called racism) is justified. That must not exist in any true democracy.

If you did not learn about General Sisi, then you did not yet understand other wild cards in Egypt. Many players are at that poker table. Each with completely different ideas about what is democracy, if democracy really works, and what kind of power they crave.

General Sisi was even educated in Pennsylvania. One of the first things he did was purge the Army of supporters of the previous supreme commander. We may now be seeing why he did that.

You are seriously misusing the term "racism".

It sounded like he meant religious bigotry; however, he could mean generalized racial bigotry as I've heard of darker complexioned inhabitants of the region being referred to as "sand ni**ers." Perhaps he has something more specific in mind.
:corn:

>

>
Attachment 45153

Racism was always about judging people only on first impressions. Racism was never only about race.

A white skinned and black skinned man can be of similar race. And still racism says they are different. Racism (as so many use the term) foolishly says two white men with major race differences are same. Again, judging only based upon first impressions rather than first learning the facts (ie DNA analysis).

Racism is any judgement based upon first impressions. Israel is an example. For example learn how they treat Eritrean refugees and other non-Jews from torture camps on Israel's border.

Hate based upon religion is only another example of racism. Democracies have no business associating religion with government. A democracy cannot exist when government and religion are same. Democracy demands that the emotional concept called religion be separate from the pragmatic concept called government. Unfortunately, the US government does not make that distinction when discussing democracies elsewhere.

Racism is about race. The term you are seeking is "prejudice".

It will not serve you to expand the definition of racism for your own personal purposes.

"Bigotry" works well too.

Isn't bigotry acting on prejudice?